Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

This paper claims that the observed coincidence between dark energy and matter density is a natural outcome of a string-motivated axion plus negative vacuum energy, weighted by observation-time duration, and that this 'ALAverse' predicts an

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:06 UTC pith:GPENPYNA

load-bearing objection The new DE EOS parametrization is a real technical contribution; the anthropic ~40% coincidence claim is under-specified and needs robustness tests before it can be taken as a prediction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24100 v1 pith:GPENPYNA submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

ALAverse: A falsifiable anthropic model from the string landscape

Zhiqi Huang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords axiverseanthropic principledark energycosmological constant problemcoincidence problemaxion dark energyequation of statestring landscape
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that two long-standing dark energy puzzles—its implausibly small value and its coincidence with today's matter density—can be resolved together by a single anthropic mechanism without fine-tuning. It combines the string axiverse idea (many ultralight axions, one serving as dark energy) with a negative bare cosmological constant, and weights universes by how long they remain observable before a big crunch. Under that weighting, the model predicts roughly a 40% chance of seeing the matter density within a factor of nine of the dark energy density, matching our universe. It also predicts the dark energy equation of state sits in a distinctive 'moderate-roll, accelerated-thawing' regime, neither slow-roll nor fast-roll. The paper makes this prediction falsifiable with a two-parameter parametrization, and finds current CMB, BAO, and supernova data reject the pure cosmological constant at about 2.7σ and mildly favor this axionic thawing over slow-roll quintessence.

Core claim

The central claim is that if the bare vacuum energy is negative and sampled uniformly, and if universes are weighted by cumulative observation time, then the axion mass becomes anthropically confined to roughly one decade around the Hubble scale, and the probability of observing 0.1 < Ω_m < 0.9 is about 40%. The same logic anthropically disfavors slow-roll dark energy (which needs fine-tuned initial field displacement) and fast-roll (which gives too short a window of positive dark energy), leaving accelerated thawing as the typical dynamics. On current CMB, BAO, and Type Ia supernova data, the marginalized constraint δ_Ω = −0.0498 ± 0.0186 rejects ΛCDM (δ_Ω = 0) and phantom models (δ_Ω > 0)

What carries the argument

The argument rides on an effective potential V_eff(φ) = m²f²(1+cos φ/f) + ρΛ, with ρΛ a negative vacuum energy from a flat prior and the axion decay constant f fixed at the reduced Planck scale. The negative constant forces every universe to end in a big crunch, making the 'anthropic window'—from 1-Mpc-scale structure formation to the moment V_eff turns negative—finite and computable; universes are weighted by the duration of this window. The second central tool is a two-parameter dark-energy equation-of-state parametrization (ε_s, δ_Ω) built from the slow-roll function g and its integral F, with δ_Ω measuring the shift in effective matter density relative to ΛCDM. This maps both the model's

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on a chosen weighting rule—universes are weighted by the length of the observation window, not by the number of observers—and that rule is a postulate, not derived from the string theory that motivates the model.

What would settle it

A future precision measurement of the Hubble diagram that pins δ_Ω statistically to zero (or positive) at the ~1% level, or that finds 1+w_DE flat or decreasing with cosmic time, would falsify the ALAverse's central accelerated-thawing prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the ALAverse is right, the coincidence problem dissolves: a universe like ours is anthropically typical, with ~40% of weighted universes showing 0.1 < Ω_m < 0.9.
  • The dark energy equation of state today must lie in the accelerated-thawing region, rising faster than the slow-roll curve, which future Hubble-diagram measurements can confirm or rule out.
  • The axion mass is predicted to lie within about a decade of the present Hubble scale, making the field potentially detectable through its low-redshift expansion history or oscillating signatures.
  • ΛCDM and phantom dark energy are statistically disfavored (δ_Ω = 0 and δ_Ω > 0 rejected at ~2.7σ), favoring a non-phantom, time-varying dark energy.
  • The effective matter abundance Ω̃_m is more tightly constrained than Ω_m in all non-ΛCDM fits, offering a more robust summary statistic for low-redshift surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If future data confirm δ_Ω < 0 with ε_s > 0, that would give the first empirical support for an anthropic weighting based on observation duration rather than observer number, a choice that sidesteps the usual measure ambiguities.
  • The same 'no double-counting of cosmic times' rule could be applied to other landscape parameters, potentially taming anthropic probabilities beyond the cosmological constant.
  • The δ_Ω parameter may become a standard summary statistic for dark energy surveys even if the ALAverse itself is set aside, since it cleanly separates ΛCDM from evolving-dark-energy scenarios.
  • A decisive test is to measure 1+w_DE(z) at several redshifts: the ALAverse predicts a monotonic rise at z ≲ 1, distinct from freezing models and from any constant equation of state.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dark-energy model ('ALAverse') that combines a string-axiverse ultralight axion with a negative cosmological constant. Using an observation-time-weighted anthropic prior over the axion mass, negative vacuum energy, and initial field displacement, it claims a ~39–43% probability of observing 0.1 < Ω_m < 0.9, thereby 'naturally resolving' the fine-tuning and coincidence problems. For the resulting dark-energy equation of state, the paper derives a two-parameter parametrization (ε_s, δ_Ω) with exact energy conservation and shows that the ALAverse typically produces accelerated-thawing behavior. Fits to Planck CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, and DES-Dovekie SNe yield δ_Ω = −0.0498 ± 0.0186, reported as a 2.7σ rejection of ΛCDM and phantom models, and a 'mild preference' for the ALAverse over slow-roll quintessence.

Significance. The paper has several genuine strengths. Equations (15)–(16) are internally clean: using the inverse function B of (e^x−1)/x enforces the exact energy-conservation consistency relation (12) by construction, and Fig. 2 demonstrates sub-percent agreement with numerical solutions. The observational pipeline uses publicly available likelihoods and standard codes (Cobaya, CAMB), which makes the phenomenological constraints easy to reproduce. If the anthropic probability claims were robust, this would be an important step toward a falsifiable string-motivated dark-energy model. However, the central anthropic predictions depend on unspecified prior ranges and on a weighting scheme that the authors explicitly concede is one of many. The claimed 39–43% probability is therefore conditional, and the observational 'preference for the ALAverse' is partly an artifact of comparing phenomenological parametrizations rather than the ALAverse prior itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Anthropic selection of Ω_m / Fig. 1] The claimed P(0.1<Ω_m<0.9)=39–43% is not reproducible because the flat priors on ρ_Λ and φ_i and the uniform-in-ln m prior are stated without any numerical ranges. The text says 'For ρ_Λ and φ_i, we assume flat (uniform) priors' and then explains the lower bound on m by saying 'Since ρ_Λ is independently sampled from a flat prior, it cannot be adjusted to accommodate arbitrarily small m'. That lower bound, and hence the entire Ω_m CDF, depends on the width Δρ_Λ of the flat ρ_Λ prior. If Δρ_Λ ≫ m²f², the probability of positive initial dark energy scales as m²f²/Δρ_Λ; if Δρ_Λ is chosen near the observed scale H₀²M_Pl², then part of the coincidence is being assumed. Please specify all prior ranges and show that the 39–43% result is stable under reasonable variations of these ranges.
  2. [Anthropic selection of Ω_m / Introduction] The observation-time weighting is a choice, not a derivation. The paper itself states 'we do not claim that our weighting scheme is superior to all possible alternatives [19–25]'. Alternative anthropic schemes—weighting by collapsed mass, galaxy number, or observer number—are known to produce different Λ (and hence Ω_m) distributions. Therefore the 39–43% probability is conditional on one weighting convention. The central 'natural resolution' claim needs a robustness check against at least a few alternative weights; otherwise the ALAverse is not falsifiable as stated, because the model does not uniquely determine the weighting.
  3. [Comparison with observational data / Table I] The abstract's claim that 'the data also show a mild preference for the ALAverse over slow-roll quintessence' is stronger than what Table I supports. The table compares the phenomenological STSF model (Eq. 8) with the TSF model (Eq. 15) using ΔAIC; TSF is a broad family that contains the ALAverse solutions as a subset. A better AIC for TSF does not directly quantify evidence for the ALAverse prior, since most of the TSF parameter space may lie outside the ALAverse prediction. Fig. 3 is also a qualitative overlay of ALAverse solutions with observational contours. Please compute a posterior or evidence for the ALAverse prior (with its explicit ranges) or soften the claim to 'the data prefer accelerated thawing'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] Typo in header: 'Cosmological paramters' should be 'Cosmological parameters'.
  2. [Comparison with observational data] The text says the new parametrization is implemented 'in Sec.' but the section number is missing; please insert the correct cross-reference.
  3. [Abstract / Fig. 1] The abstract quotes 'a ∼40% probability'; the body gives 43% for a uniform-in-ln m prior and 39% for uniform-in-m. Quote '39–43%' for precision.
  4. [Equations (8), (15)] Equation (15) is called a 'second-order approximation' in Fig. 2 but an 'exact energy-conservation parametrization' in the text. The terminology should be made consistent; one is a statement about Taylor-order accuracy, the other about the integral constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the anthropic prediction and data constraints are computations from stated priors and dynamics, not reductions of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The ~40% coincidence probability is a numerical output of evolving the Lambda+axion system with stated flat/log priors and an observation-time weighting; it is not defined in terms of the target Omega_m interval, and the paper does not tune the prior bounds to force that number (though it under-specifies the rho_Lambda and phi_i ranges). The dark-energy EOS parametrization (15) is constructed to satisfy the energy-conservation identity (12) and is validated against numerical solutions in Fig. 2, so the subsequent delta_Omega constraint and model comparison rest on independent numerical/observational evidence rather than on the self-citations [28-30] alone. The paper explicitly concedes that the anthropic weighting is one of several alternatives ('we do not claim that our weighting scheme is superior to all possible alternatives [19-25]') and that the anthropic window is 'admittedly crude'; these are limitations on robustness, not circular reductions. The DESI-motivated introduction of the accelerated-thawing term is a flexible parametrization choice, but the data preference for delta_Omega < 0 is an actual likelihood result, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No step reduces, by construction, to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper postulates no new physical entities; the load is carried by priors and weighting: a flat ρ_Λ prior with unstated bounds, a flat φ_i prior, a log-uniform m prior with unstated bounds, the hand-fixed f = M_Pl, and an adopted (not derived) observation-time anthropic weighting generate the coincidence probabilities and the m~H_0 peak. The 2.7σ data claim adds fitted parameters δ_Ω and ε_s to the ledger.

free parameters (7)
  • range of the flat ρ_Λ prior = not stated
    Flat prior on the negative vacuum energy declared in 'Anthropic selection of Ω_m'; the lower bound on m and the 39-43% coincidence probabilities arise from its phase-space suppression, so the unstated range is load-bearing.
  • range of the flat φ_i prior = not stated
    Slow-roll disfavoring is quantified through the flat prior on the initial field displacement, whose bounds are not given.
  • bounds of the ln m prior = not stated
    Log-uniform axion-mass prior declared; the anthropic m-distribution (Fig. 1 lower panel) is normalized over an unstated range.
  • axion decay constant f = M_Pl
    Fixed to the reduced Planck mass 'for simplicity' in the theoretical framework; the m~H_0 prediction scales with f, and the abstract presents f~M_Pl as an input ('typical string-motivated'), not an output.
  • anthropic window cutoff = 10^12 yr
    Conservative sampling cutoff; the paper argues it has little impact but does not quantify the sensitivity.
  • δ_Ω (TSF fit) = -0.0498 ± 0.0186
    Fitted to CMB+BAO+SN (Table I); carries the 2.7σ headline claim.
  • ε_s (TSF fit) = 0.116 (+0.101, -0.075)
    Fitted slow-roll normalization in the TSF model (Table I).
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Observation-time anthropic weighting: observations at the same cosmic time are not double counted; universes are weighted by cumulative observation duration
    Adopted in 'Anthropic selection of Ω_m'; the paper explicitly declines to claim superiority over alternatives [19-25], yet the ~40% coincidence probability is a product of this choice.
  • domain assumption String landscape: AdS vacua are far more generic than long-lived dS vacua; axion masses are log-uniform
    Invoked in the Introduction via refs [9,12]; supplies the negative-Λ starting point and the ln m prior without a quantitative landscape measure.
  • domain assumption Early-universe parameters frozen at Planck best-fit; only (m, ρ_Λ, φ_i) vary
    Stated in 'Anthropic selection of Ω_m' with the admission 'This is not the typical situation in the string landscape'.
  • ad hoc to paper Anthropic window: onset at σ_1Mpc > 1.686, termination when V_eff < 0, 10^12-yr cutoff
    Window definition in 'Anthropic selection of Ω_m'; 1.686 is standard, but the endpoints as habitability conditions are a modeling choice the paper calls 'admittedly crude'.
  • standard math Spherical-collapse threshold and linear growth equation (Eq. 6) govern structure formation
    Standard cosmological perturbation theory; adequate on 1 Mpc scales where δϕ is negligible.
  • standard math Slow-roll g(x) and ε_s machinery of refs [28-30]
    Self-cited prior derivation (same author) used as the baseline of the new parametrization; analytic with stated assumptions, so treated as a standard input but flagged for author overlap.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10996 in / 33374 out tokens · 293900 ms · 2026-07-31T23:06:21.356667+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We combine the axiverse with a negative cosmological constant $\Lambda$, both originating from the string landscape, and apply an observation-time-weighted anthropic argument. Adopting a uniform prior on $\Lambda$ and a typical string-motivated axion decay constant comparable to the reduced Planck scale, this framework predicts a $\sim 40\%$ probability of observing $0.1 < \Omega_m < 0.9$, thereby naturally resolving the long-standing fine-tuning and coincidence problems of dark energy. Unlike many scalar-field dark energy models, the anthropic Lambda-axion universe (ALAverse) statistically disfavors slow-roll dynamics, as slow-roll requires fine-tuning of the initial field displacement. Moreover, the negative cosmological constant renders fast-roll scenarios anthropically unfavorable, since they typically yield only a very brief observational window with positive dark energy density. Having ruled out both extremes, the ALAverse characteristically predicts a moderate-roll dynamics. We derive a two-parameter parametrization in terms of $\delta_\Omega$ and $|\varepsilon_s|$ that covers ALAverse solutions as well as a broad class of canonical and phantom field models. Current observational data yield $\delta_\Omega = -0.0498 \pm 0.0186$, corresponding to a $2.7\sigma$ rejection of $\Lambda$CDM ($\delta_\Omega = 0$) and phantom models ($\delta_\Omega > 0$). The data also show a mild preference for the ALAverse over slow-roll quintessence, a trend that can be conclusively tested with future high-precision measurements of the Hubble diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24100 by Zhiqi Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Anthropically selected CDF of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dark energy EOS from ALAverse numerical solutions and comparison with the first-order approximation (8) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. ALAverse solutions (with prior Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 36 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchi- atti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. Tonry, Astronomical Journal116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goo- bar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Penny- packer, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz-Lapuente, N. Walton, B. Schae- fer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Mat...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Reviews of Modern Physics61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  5. [5]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, Phys- ical Review D68, 046005 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0301240 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Carter, inConfrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, IAU Symposium, Vol

    B. Carter, inConfrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, IAU Symposium, Vol. 63, edited by M. S. Longair (1974) pp. 291–298

    1974

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Physical Review Letters59, 2607 (1987)

    S. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters59, 2607 (1987)

    1987

  8. [8]

    Zlatev, L

    I. Zlatev, L. Wang, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters82, 896 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  9. [9]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Physical Review D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Freese, J

    K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 3233 (1990)

    1990

  11. [11]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Physical Review D99, 104070 (2019), arXiv:1905.03496 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    U. H. Danielsson and T. V. Riet, International Jour- nal of Modern Physics D27, 1830007-298 (2018), arXiv:1804.01120 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Murai and F

    K. Murai and F. Takahashi, Physical Review D112, 103501 (2025), arXiv:2504.12852 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu, and S.-H. H. Tye, Physical Review D112, 023524 (2025), arXiv:2503.18120 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    G. D. Starkman and R. Trotta, Physical Review Letters 97, 201301 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607227 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  16. [16]

    Sudoh, T

    T. Sudoh, T. Totani, R. Makiya, and M. Nagashima, MNRAS464, 1563 (2017), arXiv:1607.00180 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Sorini, J

    D. Sorini, J. A. Peacock, and L. Lombriser, MNRAS 535, 1449 (2024), arXiv:2411.07301 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu, and S.-H. H. Tye, JCAP2025, 055 (2025), arXiv:2506.24011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Efstathiou, MNRAS274, L73 (1995)

    G. Efstathiou, MNRAS274, L73 (1995)

    1995

  20. [20]

    Garriga, M

    J. Garriga, M. Livio, and A. Vilenkin, Physical Review D61, 023503 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906210 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  21. [21]

    J. A. Peacock, MNRAS379, 1067 (2007), arXiv:0705.0898 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Bousso and S

    R. Bousso and S. Leichenauer, Physical Review D81, 063524 (2010), arXiv:0907.4917 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    L. A. Barnes, P. J. Elahi, J. Salcido, R. G. Bower, G. F. Lewis, T. Theuns, M. Schaller, R. A. Crain, and J. Schaye, MNRAS477, 3727 (2018), arXiv:1801.08781 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Salcido, R

    J. Salcido, R. G. Bower, L. A. Barnes, G. F. Lewis, P. J. Elahi, T. Theuns, M. Schaller, R. A. Crain, and J. Schaye, MNRAS477, 3744 (2018), arXiv:1710.06861 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    B. K. Oh, J. A. Peacock, S. Khochfar, and B. D. Smith, MNRAS517, 59 (2022), arXiv:2209.08783 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    J. E. Gunn and J. R. Gott, III, Astrophysical Journal 176, 1 (1972)

    1972

  27. [27]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophysical Journal187, 425 (1974)

    1974

  28. [28]

    Huang, J

    Z. Huang, J. R. Bond, and L. Kofman, Astrophysical Journal726, 64 (2011), arXiv:1007.5297 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Miao and Z

    H. Miao and Z. Huang, Astrophysical Journal868, 20 (2018), arXiv:1803.07320 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Huang, Physical Review D104, 103533 (2021), arXiv:2108.06089 [astro-ph.CO]

    Z. Huang, Physical Review D104, 103533 (2021), arXiv:2108.06089 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen,et al., Physical Review D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton, and G. Efstathiou, MNRAS 517, 4620 (2022), arXiv:2205.10869 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, JCAP2022, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W. D. Kenworthy,et al., MNRAS 548, stag632 (2026), arXiv:2511.07517 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev.D66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    R. M. Neal, ArXiv Mathematics e-prints (2005), math/0502099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    Lewis, Phys

    A. Lewis, Phys. Rev.D87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  41. [41]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, JCAP 1204, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    E. V. Linder, Physical Review Letters90, 091301 (2003), astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  44. [44]

    Reischke, B

    R. Reischke, B. St¨ olzner, B. Joachimi,et al., Astron- omy & Astrophysics709, A82 (2026), arXiv:2512.11041 [astro-ph.CO]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC-19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC-19, 716 (1974)

    1974